On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:37 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
*> I don’t *assume* the physical. By this I don’t mean that the physical > does not exist.* > Then I don't know what you mean. > *Eventually I show that it is derivable from the laws of the observable > for the universal machine.* > Physical objects are observable, pure numbers are not and neither is a universal machine unless its made of physical objects. > >> You speak of several areas where induction is used but apparently > there are so many "very different" things about the two types of induction > that you are unable to specify a single one. I would really like to know > which one does not involve the core concept that things usually continue. > > > Mathematical induction is only a set of induction rules or axioms, used > in theoretical deduction. > The fundamental axiom of any form of induction is the same, things usually continue. For animals induction is even more important than deduction even though if you follow it for long enough eventually it will always fail. It won't work forever but it will give you a very good winning streak. > > *It is used in applied mathematics, and it is studied in theoretical > learning theory. I mentioned often the paper by Case and Smith, for a very > good introduction to learning (and extrapolating, …) theory. * > Animals have been using induction to their advantage for at least 500 million years and they didn't need a paper by Case and Smith to do it. > > >> An infinity? There may or may not be an infinity of John Clarks in the > Multiverse but there is not even one John Clark in arithmetic; > > When you say “yes” to the *digitalist* doctor, > And I have in effect said yes to the digitalist* doctor. > *> **you bet that you will survive* > It's the very best sort of bet. If I win I receive a infinitely large jackpot. If I don't win then I've lost nothing except $80,000 and I can afford that. * > through the fact that some reconstitution of yourself will keep intact > the digital (and thus arithmetical) relations at some relevant level. * > I'm betting that certain atoms don't have my name scratched on them and atoms are generic. I'm betting that the key aspect of what makes me be me is not the particular atoms that make up my body right now but the related orientation the atoms have with each each other, and that is information can be stored digitally. I'm betting that is the road to immortality if such a road exists. >> If you're reading this then right now the proof they exist is LITERALLY > right in front of your face because your computer is a material Turing > Machine. > > *> Yes, but a material machine is not necessarily a primitively material > machine.* > Given that consciousness is the only thing you're interested in I don't understand why you keep talking about what is or is not "primitive". Complex things are by definition NOT primitive but they can do things that primitive things can not, things that are more...well.. complex; intelligent behavior for example. And if you believe that Darwin was right about Natural Selection than you'd have to conclude you couldn't be smart without being conscious, although you couldn't rule out the reverse. > > *Given that all computations are realised in the arithmetical reality* > [,,,] > No computations are realised in arithmetic. Not one. Computations are performed by Physical Turing Machines and only by Physical Turing Machines. >>The John Clark in arithmetic does not exist because John Clark can change > but arithmetic can’t. > > > *The John Clark in arithmetic does change relatively to the universal > number running them.* > Then the John Clark in Physics is totally uninterested in the John Clark in arithmetic because the John Clark in arithmetic can not change and thus can not behave intelligently or be conscious or *do" anything at all. In other words it does not make the slightest difference to me or to anything in my world if the "John Clark in arithmetic" exists or not. You keep talking about that but as far as intelagent behavior and consciousness is concerned I'll be damned if I can see how it makes the slightest difference if matter is primitive or not. Animals are not primitive because they are made of atoms, but that does not change the fact that animals are alive and atoms are not. *>>> And Turing showed that a lambda expression can emulate all Turing > machine,* > > >> No he did not. > > > *> That is proved in all textbook. * > No they do not. What textbooks prove is one set of ASCII characters that belong to the lambda universe is equivalent to another set of ASCII characters that belongs to the Turing universe. What those textbooks most certainly do *NOT *prove or even hint at is that either set of ASCII characters can do what a Physical Turing Machine can do. I said it before I'll say it again, you may be able to follow the individual steps of a proof but when you get to the end you don't understand exactly what it is that has been proven. >> A Physical Turing Machine can emulate Lambda Calculus but Lambda > Calculus can't emulate a damn thing without getting physical. > > *> x emulate y on z means only the arithmetical sentence saying that > phi_x(y,z) = phi_y(z),* > Yes exactly, one set of squiggles means the same thing as another set of squiggles; but squiggles can not make a calculation, only a Physical Turing Machine can. >> And that's why Godel thought Turing's work was superior to that of > Alonzo Church. > *Gödel’s thought Turing was more convincing for the claim that his > formalism captures the notion of human calculation.* > Yes I agree, Gödel’s thought humans and Physical Turing Machines could make calculations but lambda calculus could not. > >> Lambda Calculus is just a programing language, it's unique because > it's the smallest one known but it's still just a language. > > *> Don’t confuse the syntax and grammar, with the model of Lambda > Calculus.* > If Lambda Calculus is a model it's not a working model, but a Turing Machine is the real deal. > >> Meaning? The Davis book by itself has no meaning whatsoever, it only > has meaning in relation to something physical, like a brain that knows > English and is familiar with mathematical notation. And the knowledge of > those things is encoded in the way physical neurons in the brain are wired > up. > > *> I was not talking on the meaning of a book, but about an explanation > useful for this thread which can be found in that book, but you shift the > level systematically here. I will no more answer such claims.* > That is probably a wise move on your part; I mean how could anybody successfully rebut such claims. > > > *Natural selection selected the belief in matter. I can be OK with this.* > Nature selected the belief in matter because it worked, so there must be some truth to it. Animals that believed in Physics were able to pass on their genes to the next generation, animals that didn't did not. > *> But natural selection did not select the metaphysical assumption that* Natural Selection is totally uninterested in metaphysics because it has just as much effect on the physical universe as your silly phantom calculations do. None at all. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2BhQERjnZaQypc%3DASP5tMPD9Xd54aOaWW8vqvkbTFByg%40mail.gmail.com.
